I don't think any of us are disagreeing that drunk driving is reprehensible, though.

Since that seems agreed, there is no need to argue it.

Exactly. No one is arguing or defending what Ryan Dunn did. Chastising him or using social media to call him out within hours of his death isn't going to teach him a lesson. He is dead. Everyone knows why. It is only going to hurt his loved ones.

But I don't believe he was chastising Ryan Dunn. I think his comment was more towards his friends who from Ebert's POV, "allowed" him to get in the car and drive drunk, and as a PSA in general to not let friends drive drunk.

I still think it was very poor timing, but I don't believe he was directing it towards the people who died.

snip...Having achieved their laudable goal of degrading public sensibility to a great extent, it's rather hypocritical for those associated with the show then to wonder why the public in general, and people in the industry in particular, are not as sensitive to the boundaries of good taste as they used to be.

I'm torn, but this very close to what I'm feeling. Ebert doesn't owe anyone an apology - I say that as a huge Donkey fan (who would not drive 100+ mph). Ebert's comment seemed to take a jab at those who LET Ryan leave, and if he was drunk, it was well-deserved. This is the same crew who told co-star Steve-O that he was going to rehab even if they had to punch him in the face and knock him out to get him there (Johnny Knoxville's words - and yes Steve-O went).

Let's be careful of the "drunk" accusations until the toxicology report is released (unless I missed it?). I know he tweeted a pic of himself drinking that night, but that doesn't make him automatically drunk. Those guys *always* look crazy. There was also an interview with April Margera (mother of co-star and BFF Bam) saying that the guys never edited their behavior around her and she felt that one thing Ryan wouldn't do is drive drunk. Obviously that doesn't prove anything and we'll see when tox is released, but if you've ever watched the show, she's right that the guys include her in everything. Regardless, his fast driving was idiotic and it's good that no other vehicles were involved.

I have no problem with Ebert's post. I think he used a very timely incident to get across a very important point. My sister and a friend were walking down the street and were hit by a drunk driver. Thank god they did not die. Other people were aware of his state but did not stop him from driving. You can't tell me that there were people at the bar who did not know Ryan was drunk but let him leave anyway. It's a shame he killed his friend, but thankfully he didn't hurt anyone else that night. The more people talk about how foolish this whole scenario was, and use it as a lesson, the better. He's a celebrity and this will all be forgotten in the next newscycle. I say, good for Ebert for making the statement now, while it's fresh in people's minds. And I don't think it's insulting or hurtful, I think it's a blunt statement. It's a warning to others to not let something like this happen again.

If "everyone knows why", why is it rude to publicly acknowledge the fact? Should the newspapers not mention anything about him having had a number of drinks before the accident? Why no outrage that they didn't report simply a tragic accident, no known cause?

If anyone was "called out", it was the friends, who didn't prevent this from happening. And those people (and other people like that) CAN be taught a lesson.

Logged

My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

If "everyone knows why", why is it rude to publicly acknowledge the fact? Should the newspapers not mention anything about him having had a number of drinks before the accident? Why no outrage that they didn't report simply a tragic accident, no known cause?

If anyone was "called out", it was the friends, who didn't prevent this from happening. And those people (and other people like that) CAN be taught a lesson.

I am not saying Ebert did or did not have a point. Newspapers reporting facts are not making judgement calls. All I wonder is why this couldn't have waited a day or so, instead of compounding the pain of the heartbroken when the wound is fresh. The point wouldn't be any less valid after giving people some time to cope with their shock and loss. Instead much of his point has been lost due to the focus on the insensitivity of his timing.

if you read his blog, his FB page was even taken down for a time due to the volume of complaints about its content. He has even acknowleged his timing wasn't great:

As far as the timing, it is coinciding with the testimonials and special tv segements about how tragic it is, how people will miss him, etc. Waiting until all of that was over and then dredgin his death back up to make the point doesn't seem all that different/better to me. WHen movie stars OD they comment on that right away and discuss the history of drug use, etc. I don't see this as much different. Like I say, if this was an ordinary citizen I do think the local papers might very well have op-ed pieces on drunk driving, the responsibility of friends, etc.

As far as the timing, it is coinciding with the testimonials and special tv segements about how tragic it is, how people will miss him, etc. Waiting until all of that was over and then dredgin his death back up to make the point doesn't seem all that different/better to me. WHen movie stars OD they comment on that right away and discuss the history of drug use, etc. I don't see this as much different. Like I say, if this was an ordinary citizen I do think the local papers might very well have op-ed pieces on drunk driving, the responsibility of friends, etc.

I work for a community newspaper, and I can assure you that while this would happen, it would not happen immediately following the person's death or in the same paper as the obituary. Not in our paper. The initial coverage would be respectful of the family and the grieving.

Also, a well-thought out piece, or commentary, is entirely different than throwing a quippy, "clever" tweet out there as he did.

I like Roger Ebert, and while I agree that personal irresponsibility caused Ryan Dunn's death, I think Ebert's statement was inappropriate. He's perfectly ok to express this sentiment in private but to release it a day after Dunn's death is insensitive, particularly to the family he left behind. It's not THEIR fault he drove while impaired.

Several friends and family, including Bam Margera's mother (who considered Ryan as another son) saw it. So I'd say a fair amount. Also, Ebert had to know that once it was out there, it would get back to the family. If by no other means than "Hey, did you see what Ebert said??" It was ill-advised at best.

Hundreds of papers are reporting that he died driving drunk. Are they also being insensitive?

I guess I don't see chastizement here. He was making a comment on the conditions under which he died, but I didn't see any insult.

Logged

'I shall sit here quietly by the fire for a bit, and perhaps go out later for a sniff of air. Mind your Ps and Qs, and don't forget that you are supposed to be escaping in secret, and are still on the high-road and not very far from the Shire!' -FOTR

My take is that when you live a very public life, you'll also get very public scrutiny. And family members are along for the ride, whether it means positive perks or negative public comments. It's not something where people can accept the fame and fortune, but claim ordinary citizen status when something negative happens. So overall I don't have a problem with what Ebert said, or any media who magnified his comments. I didn't read the link, but I'm guessing somebody mainstream picked this up, since like Shoo said, who follows Ebert on twitter anyway?

I didn't read the link, but I'm guessing somebody mainstream picked this up, since like Shoo said, who follows Ebert on twitter anyway?

484,160 people. And you don't have to follow someone to read their tweets. I would imagine this one got retweeted far and wide. (In a quick look, all Twitter will say is that it was over 100 people...I don't think they give exact amounts above that.)

Oh....bad guess! But then how do you know 484,160 people follow him? (Not snark, I'm honestly curious). I just follow a couple celebrity types, and I don't think anyone I know personally uses it unless they're chasing celebs like I am!